The Young Turks - Bigger Broader War - July 23, 2026

Episode Date: July 24, 2026

Donald Trump is moving the United States closer to a wider war in the Middle East, surging additional military forces into the region while weighing new options to escalate the conflict with Iran. At the same time, Sama Safi, a 20-year-old American Palestinian university student, was abducted by the IDF during a middle-of-the-night raid in the occupied West Bank, raising urgent questions about the U.S. government's response to the treatment of its own citizens. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene breaks with fellow Republicans by blasting House members who backed the NDAA Thanks to today's sponsors: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial today at shopify.com/tyt Get 40% OFF the Ground News Vantage Plan when you sign up at ground.news/tyt Stay informed without the media spin at ground.news/tyt Visit www.sleep.me/tyt to get up to $255 off your Chilipad 2.0 with code TYT Use less data, get paid by switching to Noble Mobile: https://go.tyt.com/getnoble Posting a job is easy at upwork.com Check out new podcast series by searching for Future Hindsight wherever you get podcasts Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Legendary has arrived in Alberta with BetMGM Casino. Sign up to unlock access to over 4,000 casino games, including exclusive slots you can't spin anywhere else. Survivor's ready? The iconic TV show is now an online casino game, where you can tap into Island Fun. But MGM has also brought the prices right, Game of Thrones, Family Feud, MGM millions, and so many more exclusive casino games to Alberta.

Get Las Vegas right from your phone with live dealer games streaming from real tables. And every time you play, you can enjoy instant deposit options and fast withdrawals. BetMGM Casino and its legendary library of games are available. Download the BetMGM app. See Betmgmgm.com for terms. 18 plus Alberta only. Please play responsibly. Subject to eligibility requirements.

If gambling is affecting your mental health or well-being, 21-1-Alberta is here to help. Call or text 211 or visit ab.211.ca. BetMGem operates pursuant to an operating agreement with the Alberta I-Gaming Corporation. Standard message and data rates may apply. There's no shortcut for saving time, but saving money is simple. Just combine your car and home insurance with Bel Air Direct and save. Get a quote at bellairdirect.com.

Merge. Welcome to our trash revolution. I'm so upset. Oh, my God. The Turks, I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and I've got a full jam-pack show ahead for all of you today. We're going to talk about the energy markets and just how devastating things already are when it comes to the cost of a barrel of oil. So we'll discuss that in the first hour. In the second hour, our good friend and the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, Trita Parsi,

will be joining me to not only talk about the latest updates in the war against Iran. actually want to talk to him about AP wrote in his substack, about the nuclear, civilian nuclear deal that President Donald Trump made with Saudi Arabia. There was a little bit of a backpedal today, and we'll get into a little bit on that. But I think that Trita Parsi brings up a point that is irrefutable, incredibly important to address. How are you going to engage in a war against the civilian nuclear program in Iran while simultaneously shaking hands with the Saudis for their civilian nuclear program. Anyway, we're going to have fun. It's going to be a great show in our members-only bonus episode today. I will discuss Jasmine Crockett weaponizing her race because she's a loser

who can't accept the fact that she lost. And so now she's trying to sabotage a fellow Democrats campaign for a Senate seat in Texas. What are you doing? You already lost. Like, anyway, I have strong feelings about that. And so we'll get to that in the bonus episode for our members, tyat.com slash join to become one. Let's get to our first story. This has to change. I am really sick and tired of the Israeli government, the Netanyahu government, taking American taxpayer dollars and then mistreating Americans. Weeks ago, Senator Chris Van Hollen demanded that Israel release,

an American university student in the occupied West Bank, who was abducted by IDF soldiers in the middle of the night, literally at 3 a.m. Now, tragically, she remains in Israeli custody without a single charge against her. No charges. As we know, there are literally thousands of Palestinians languishing in Israeli torture dungeons without a single charge. They are hostages. Now in this case, we're talking about a literal American citizen, not the first one. I'm sure it won't be the last one who's been detained by the Israelis, held without charge, and very likely treated poorly. As we know, the treatment of detainees or anyone in Israel, not great.

Nicholas Christoph's reporting of sexual abuse in these prisons is a good example of what I'm talking about. Now, Sama Safi is the young woman I'm referring to. She's a 20 year old psychology student who was studying at Beersit University in the occupied West Bank. She was abducted from her family home at 3 a.m. in the morning. Now, her mother grew up in the United States. Safi was born in the United States. She moved back to the West Bank for university. She apparently also grew up in the West Bank. But nonetheless, she's an American citizen who has been abducted without any charges against her. And we should care about this, right? This should be really, really important. This should be really important to the woman who helped to amplify rape allegations against Platner because she cares so much about American women being sexually harassed. She cares so much about, you know, misogyny.

Well, there's an American citizen languishing in an Israeli prison right now as we speak. no charges against her, she has been detained since June 2nd. And considering the fact that there are all sorts of sexual misconduct and rape allegations taking place right now against IDF soldiers in these prisons, I would just venture to say she should care. She should care just a little bit. But maybe she only cares when it comes to sinking campaigns. Anyway, let's move on. So three other students were also arrested. around the same time, not American citizens, but they were also students of the same university, including a member of the Palestinian women's national soccer team. And according to the Guardian,

they were all held at an Israeli detention and interrogation center in Jerusalem, notorious for its record of abuse. So I forget that woman's name, you know, the woman who allegedly cares so much about American women being mistreated. Cheyenne Hunt, hey, Diane Hunt, maybe spare a word for the 20-year-old American citizen that was detained by IDF soldiers at 3 a.m. in the morning on June 2nd in Occupied West Bank and is currently still in that prison without a single charge against her. Because you care about things like rape, right? There's a very good possibility that she's being mistreated in this prison that she doesn't belong in because she did nothing wrong. So what do we know about this case? What kind of excuses are we hearing? from the Israelis in regard to her detention. Well, first, making matters worse for this poor 20-year-old Samasafi is the fact that she has a chronic medical condition that requires regular treatment. This is something that Sarah on X shared with the public, and I want to give her a lot of credit. You know, she drew attention to this story for me, and she has continued trying to draw attention

to what is happening to Samasafi. She suffers from a chronic and auto-inflammatory disease that causes debilitating fevers and pain. She needs daily medication and regular treatment abroad in order to keep things under control. And her family said that she was receiving some medication in this Israeli prison, but not enough and not the right kind to properly treat her condition. Now, in late June, and this is important for you guys to know. In late June, Newsweek decided to shockingly publish a story about what happened to Samasafi. And I say shockingly because the editor over at Newsweek is Josh Hammer, an Uber Zionist who has absolutely no problem lying through his teeth on any panel that I've seen him on.

With that in mind, Newsweek published this article, and I want to read you the headline, U.S. citizen held by Israeli military for three weeks without charges, without charges. So does the IDF have anything to say? Do the Israelis have anything to say? Have they given us a single excuse for why they would detain a 20-year-old university student barge into her home and abduct her at 3 a.m. in the morning? Okay, well, I-24 News, which of course is an Israeli publication, says that the IDF arrested Sama Safi, 20, among others at the university earlier this week, suspected of promoting terrorist

activities and additional terrorism related activities. That's it. That's all they need to do. Just claim that you were supporting terrorist activities without providing a shred of evidence and without even charging you with that. There are no charges against her. Makes me think that they're abundantly aware that she wasn't engaging in any terroristic activity or behavior.

These people are so dangerous, so loathsome, and it is a stain on the reputation of the United States of America to be aligned with them. Now, Safi's attorney who spoke to The Guardian provided a little more detail about what the Israeli government is saying. So Safi's attorney, the Israeli human rights lawyer, Leah Semel, said that the students appeared to have been targeted after two other students, who were themselves detained at the time, provided the Israeli military with dozens of names of people allegedly involved in an activist student organization called Khatoub. Now Israel says that the group is affiliated with an organization known as the popular front for the liberation of Palestine, which it has designated as a terror organization. So they're claiming that Sama Saffi was part of an organization that is not

designated as a terrorist organization, but is somehow related to or affiliated with a terrorist organization. So Saffi, by the way, totally denies that she was part of any student group. And in regard to the students who provided names to Safi's lawyer, provided names to the IDF, Safi's lawyer makes a really good point. She says, I don't know how this information was extorted from them, probably by force. It's nonsense. So just think about how the IDF operates. They just randomly detain people and then under duress, demand that they provide names of additional individuals that they can terrorize. Because here's the thing, if she was actually guilty of something, why not charge her?

Like if there's probable cause, reason to believe that she's engaging in terrorism, why not charge her? She's not charged. Yeah, she has been sitting in an Israeli prison since June 2nd, 20-year-old, 20. So where is she being held right now? Well, the IMEU policy project, provided an update today. Palestinian American student, Sama Safi, is now being wrongfully detained in Damon Israeli military prison and has been enduring horrific conditions and abuse after a temporary release for medical treatment. The Israeli military had no right to take Sama in the first place, let alone hold her in such inhumane conditions. It is vital that you call your senators and tell them to demand her

unconditional and immediate freedom. Now, Senator Chris Van Hollen, as you saw on the video earlier, has been one of few lawmakers who gave a damn and has even said anything about this. Other senators include Peter Welch, Jeff Merkley, Chris Van Hollen, and in the House, only one. Only one lawmaker has raised awareness about what's happening to Samasafi. One. And that's Ayanna of Presley. Real quick, let's talk about something that holds way too many businesses back. You've got a great idea, you've got momentum, but you're stuck because you don't have the right person to execute on it. And hiring, full-time recruiting takes weeks, weeks you don't have. Here's a tip. You don't have to do it all yourself. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay

expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations and more. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across more than 125 categories so you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster, and scale support up or down without committing to full-time headcount. You can browse profiles, review past work, and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place. Thousands of growing businesses already trust Upwork to hire flexible, high quality freelance talent for everything from one-off projects to ongoing support.

It's free to sign up and posting your job is easy. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's UPWRK.com. So I'll be kind to Cheyenne Hunt, the executive director of reckoning action, and just assume that maybe she's unaware that a young American woman is currently sitting in an Israeli prison with no charges against her. It's been the case since June 2nd. These prisons are notorious for raping detainees. And since she cares so much not rape, at least she purports to care so much about it. Hopefully this message will get to her and hopefully she will raise some awareness about it.

But something tells me she won't. I hope she proves me wrong. Where's me too? Where's me too? I guess sexual harassment at work is something worthy of destroying entire lives over. Okay, fine, fair enough. But what happens when you're dealing with a 20-year-old woman who's a political prisoner essentially and who could be sexually abused in these prisons because that's what these prisons are known for. Pathetic. I mean, think about the number of Democrats we have in both the House and the Senate. Literally one Democrat in the House, Iona Presley, even bothered to say something about this. You know who else is in the House? You know who else is in the House. I just, the rage

is overwhelming. Anyway, let's get to our next story. We also by the way, do need to fill back in our arsenal. I will never understand. Never. Why? Under any administration, a defense authorization meant to restock our military is denied. It makes no sense to me. Right now, Democrats are trying to hold off on restocking the American military. That's insane. That's crazy.

I don't care what you believe about the war on Iran, leaving our troops without the weaponry that they need. For any potential conflict is nut job stuff. It's nutty. This is a point that Pete Higgsath made yesterday. He called the $1.5 trillion dollar. budget for the military, a generational investment. Yeah, we need to do those things. These are things we need to do. You know, we could just stop the war. That way our service members are no longer in danger fighting a war on behalf of the country that Ben Shapiro seems to care so much more about. And of course,

that's the country of Israel. And it's just not lost on me at all. That the person you just heard from fancies himself a fiscal conservative who basically puts out this video. The entire thesis is Congress must approve the $1.15 trillion national defense authorization act funding bill. They must. Yeah, we're 40 trillion dollars in debt. It's true that the Pentagon has failed every single audit. It's true that, you know, even though Congress had approved close to a trillion dollars for the Pentagon in the last National Defense Authorization Act, this war that we're fighting on behalf of Israel against Iran has already proven to be so expensive that Congress just passed

a supplemental funding bill of close to a hundred billion dollars. for Iran war funding. Ben loves it. He can't get enough. But here, do me a favor, Ben. Stop calling yourself a fiscal conservative. You're a fraud. That's what you are.

You're an embarrassing fraud. Now, of course, Ben Shapiro demanding that Congress passed this bill doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there's a provision in there that merges the terrorist IDF with our own military, right? No, that can't be the case.

So let's clear some things up about the National Defense Authorization Act, which does, in fact, include Section 219, which would merge our militaries. On Tuesday, the House passed a procedural rule vote, and that passed 214 to 211, with Representative Thomas Massey being the only Republican to vote no. Now, what was that procedural vote, procedural rule vote? The lower chamber voted 214 to 211 to pass the rule, advancing the National Defense Authorization Act, a stock trading ban bill, a budget framework for a third reconciliation package and a stopgap measure that would fund federal agencies at existing levels until December 4th. So the rule also includes language to merge the safeguard American voter eligibility. Is that really the name? That's really the name of the, okay. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility America Act and the NDAA before it is sent to the Senate in a legislative procedure known as Merving, which I honestly had never heard before.

But okay, they're Mervin away. So there were some GOP holdout. So that included representatives Lauren Bobert, Anna Paulina Luna, and also Tim Burchett. And those individuals essentially represented enough holdouts to sink the rule vote. But they changed their minds after House Speaker Mike Johnson and then Steve Scalise and Tom Emmer bullied them, pressure them. So they ended up voting in favor of the procedural rule. So this is important because as you saw, there are a ton of other bills kind of crammed into this vote. And that was very much intentional.

This is what we talk about when we talk about the poison pill. So former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green explains in detail. Take a look. Let me explain the difference between the rule vote and the final passage vote. Now, any bill that goes to the House floor for a final passage vote has to go through a rule vote. And sometimes it'll be in a rule vote by itself. And sometimes they pack in other bills along with. of that bill and have just one rule vote for a whole package of bills. And that's a trick that they

use to get Republicans to vote yes because they may have a certain bill they really want to pass, even though they're against another one. They'll vote yes to that rule to move it forward. And then a bill will get voted on in final passage. That's a second vote totally separate. The final passage vote can be a standalone bill or it can be a package of bills. That's a another thing they do to trick members of Congress to vote for something that they really, another bill they really want to pass, even if they're against another one. It'll trick them to vote yes, when they really want to vote now. Yeah, these are the dirty games they play. It's sick.

The one area where I have strong agreement with some on the right, I remember Matt Gates was one of the Republican Congress people who would promote this idea, standalone bills, please. there should be a law passed, which would be impossible because Congress would need to pass it. But there should be a rule that bills need to be voted on individually. Now, during the final passage vote, the bills were separated. And the NDAA, as we reported yesterday, passed 216 to 212. However, this time there were seven Republicans who voted against it, which is so strange, guys. It's so strange.

Six of them actually voted yes on the rule vote, but seven Republicans, you know, they voted against, they voted yes on the rule vote, meaning they didn't even want any debate on the topic of Section 219. And then they proceeded to vote against the NDAA. How does that make any sense? Why would you vote against it? Especially if you voted in favor of squashing any debate. debate over Section 219. Well, Marjorie Taylor Green has a few words for these particular Republicans. Take a look. The total seven that voted no today was Josh Burkine, Tim Burchett, Eli Crane. Give me one second. Harriet Haggiman, Anna Paulina Luna, Thomas Massey, Chip Roy.

I really appreciate those seven Republicans that voted no to final passage. However, I wish six of them had voted no with Thomas Massey because Thomas Massey had the courage to vote no on the rule. If those six Republicans have voted no on the rule, then I don't think the NDAA would have moved forward and there would have been a much bigger fight on Section 219. So this is another trick and another game that gets played. So oftentimes what will happen is, I mean, like, you think that House Speaker Mike Johnson doesn't, know how each member is going to vote. He knows how each member is going to vote. And that's important because that allows for the rotating villain, rotating bad cop strategy that takes place in Congress with both parties. So you can go ahead and vote, you know, against the, you know,

the rules, you vote against the idea of allowing for a debate on Section 219 on the House floor. And you could also vote against the NDAA, even though you're actually secretly in favor of it, because it's going to pass anyway. And voting against it might save you some of the backlash and the ire that might be directed toward you by your own constituents. That's how they play this game. So, as I shared with you all yesterday when the House passed the NDAA, the fight isn't over yet because it needs to pass in the Senate. Now, last week, Democrats in the upper chamber in the Senate block the Senate version of this measure. Marjorie Taylor Green is also calling on the vice president, J.D. Vance, of course, to intervene when this bill makes its way to the Senate.

Unfortunately, I don't trust J.D. Vance, and I do not believe that J.D. Vance is an anti-interventionist or someone who's genuinely critical of Israel, I don't believe it for a second. I don't put any faith behind him. I do have faith in the American people, though. On this issue in particular, I especially have faith in Americans on the left and the right because there is a lot of backlash.

So pressure the hell out of your senators and do not let up. Call them incessantly. Show up to their offices. Do whatever it takes to make your voice heard and let it be known. that if they pass this treasonous provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, there will be political consequences.

Their political careers will be over. The Hulu original series Furious is coming to Disney Plus. Starring Emmy Rossum, Furious follows FBI agent Alice Black on the hunt for a mysterious and calculating serial killer. Both walk their own paths toward justice. And as their lives start to intertwine, the line between right and wrong begins. to blur. Don't miss the three-episode premiere of the Hulu original series Furious on July 27th, only on Hulu on Disney Plus. All right. I actually want to take a break. When we come back,

I'll reset this because I think it's important to talk about what this provision actually means, because I am positive that you've been hearing from various media figures, pundits, and yes, politicians who allege, no, no, no, no, this is not merge our militaries. What are you talking about? That's totally fake. It's made up. Yeah, well, there was a fantastic article in military.com today. And it was the most in-depth reporting I've seen on the topic of Section 219. So I'm going to tell you what it actually does. We'll be right back. Merge. A very important point from Asimov Prophet who says a government can classify any organization

as a terrorist organization. I'm surprised Trump hasn't classified. classified windmill builders as a terrorist organization. Honestly, don't hold, just don't jinx it because I have no doubt that he would actually consider it. I mean, think about what Sebastian Gorka is currently doing, labeling American citizens as domestic terrorists, calling people like Amy Goodman a threat to national security. Come on. So yeah, I agree. I think that the labeling of terrorist or terrorist organization is it's a weaponized word,

a politicized, weaponized word to go after political enemies. Certainly that's the case with Sebastian Gorka. All right. The oh right is oh wrong. If Palestine opened up its own chapter of the Salvation Army, the Israeli government would designate it as a terrorist organization 100%. 100%. Dude, they called UNRWA, a UN group that provides humanitarian relief to the Palestinians. They labeled them Hamas terrorists. They think everyone's a terrorist, by the way. They think I'm a terrorist.

If you're not on your knees pleasuring the Israelis, they will call you a terrorist. Anyway, let's go to our gifted members. Actually, welcome to our new members, Cheezy Fingers 79. and thank you for sending 5-2IT memberships. Let's get back to the show. What's up, everyone? Welcome back. I want to read one comment so you guys can get a little preview of what the members are going to hear in our bonus episode today. Elroy Independent says it'll be interesting to see if Anna's anti-black bias will be on display later in the broadcast.

Now, this is, of course, the story about Jasmine Crockett attempting to sabotage James Talarico's campaign. after he won the Democratic primary race for a Senate seat in Texas against her. She lost. And rather than be a good sport about it, rather than working hard to ensure that he wins over Ken Paxton, she's decided to essentially smear him, his supporters, people who vote in the district as racists. Or not the district, the state, because it's the Senate race. I'm going to talk about it in greater detail. But to say that I have an anti-black bias, because I'm honestly, it's not just about the black population, it's also about what I'm seeing with Israel.

I am sick of people weaponizing their identity in a cynical manner for political gain, for career gain, for any gain. In the case of Israel, for literal billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, and American service members. who lose their lives to fight a war on their behalf. Because if you don't, you're an anti-Semite, right? I'm so sick of it. I'm so sick of it. So I'm going to tell the truth, and I'm going to say what I actually think. And if you think that amounts to an anti-Black bias, I think you've got an issue.

Jasmine Crockett ran a crappy campaign. She was a crappy politician, and she was deeply corrupt. She sucked at making a case to the constituents that she was trying to appeal to. And rather than do a little bit of self-reflection, she's trying to sabotage a Senate race. So, yeah, it'll be interesting to see what I have to say. You got a little taste of it right now. Let's move on to the rest of Section 219. So we've talked about Section 219 a lot on the show. Of course, that is the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that merges the Israeli military with our own. Now, in recent weeks, we've been hearing over and over again from Israel supporters, politicians,

media figures and pundits alike, that no, no, no, that's not what this does. This does not integrate the IDF into our own military. That's crazy. I'll give you one example. Democratic representative, Adam Smith, here he is, downplaying what Section 219 is. Section 224 has been of a lot of interest to our audience. This is what would effectively partially merge the U.S. military with the Israeli military. you were originally in support of it. You changed your position on it. I just wonder,

wanted you know about your thought process here. Merge the U.S. military with the Israeli military. What it does is it talks about co-development programs. And mostly I see this as a benefit to the U.S. military, particularly when you're talking about missile defense. The Israeli military is really good at it. They can help us develop those systems so that we have a better system. I think it's an incredible exaggeration to say that this would merge the U.S. military because out of thousands, literally thousands of programs, we would have three, four, maybe five or six that we were co-developing with the IDF. But you've changed your position now, correct?

Okay, so before I get to the facts on the matter, what's up with his vocal fry? That's a real vocal fry. It's not a Jillian Michael's fake vocal fry. And I love it. I think it's hilarious. Anyway, but let's move on to the substance now. So military.com did a pretty fantastic in-depth report on section 219. You heard there, Crystal Ball referred to it as section 224.

That was the original title. It later changed to 219, but we're talking about the exact same thing. So I'm going to read you the excerpts that matter here. Haley Fuller, and thank you to Haley, because this is an excellent report, wrote the following. Section 219 would direct the defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive. executive agent to oversee the United States Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, that official would coordinate bilateral defense research, development, testing, evaluation, and industrial cooperation. That sounds like a lot. That sounds like everything in the military.

No, does it not? Does it not? Let me read it again. Graphic 3. It would direct the Defense Secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent to oversee the United States Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. That official would coordinate bilateral defense research, development, testing, evaluation, and industrial cooperation. But there's more. There's more. The proposal originated as a bipartisan, bicameral United States Israel Futures Act. Let me just emphasize the word bipartisan once more. We live under a U.S. Uniparty because on the issues that matter the most, on the issues that literally get our own people killed, oh, widespread agreement on the left and the right isn't there. I mean,

there isn't really a left in this country. Let's keep it 100. So let's name some names. Because there was a name here that I was unaware of until military.com put out this great report. So again, it bears repeating. Thank you to Haley Fuller for this incredible reporting. The proposal originated as a bipartisan bicameral United States Israel Futures Act introduced in the House by representatives Ronnie Jackson, a Republican from Texas, and Don Davis, a Democrat in North Carolina. With companion legislation from Senators Ted Budd, a Republican, and of course, Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York. And if you're curious, per the APAC tracker, Ronnie Jackson has received over $90,000 from pro-Israel Pax. Don Davis has received, my God, you're not going to, I mean, you are going to believe this, over $4 million from the Israel lobby. Ted Bud has received $80,000.

And Kirsten Gillibrand, $629,000. Jackson framed the proposal as a way to preserve America's technological advantage. and deliver new battlefield capabilities to service members. What a crock of crap. Davis emphasized its potential to prepare troops for evolving threats, particularly unmanned systems and electronic warfare. Let's pause for a second. Unmanned systems.

Yeah, let's let's have a little convo with the IDF in South Lebanon. How are they handling those unmanned drones that are getting them killed? We need their advice. Right. Okay. Senators Bud and Jilla Brand have similarly presented the initiative as an expansion of existing work on missile defense. This is important, guys. Remember that list I read to you that shows you just how integrated our militaries would be?

That list grows bigger. So work on missile defense, drones, and underground threats as a means to strengthen American military and technological capabilities. Do you see the humiliation ritual as clearly as I do? Because in order to sell this to the American people, you have American politicians on the left and the right repeating, regurgitating, BS about how we need the Israelis so bad. Our military, they're just so incompetent. What would we do without the Israelis?

There's so much more advanced than we are. Oh, if they're so advanced, then why aren't they giving us military aid? If they're so advanced, if there's rock solid, why are they desperately trying to integrate into our military to skirt any backlash from the American people in regard to the MOU that shells out over $4 billion a year in military aid to Israel? I mean, if their military is so much more advanced, why aren't they fight? you're on. Wendy's 99 cent Frosty is back and Frosty farmers couldn't be happier.

Made with Canadian dairy, they grew up cool, creamy, and mighty thick. It's farm to Frosty. Get a small 99 cent Frosty until longest second and participating Wendy's Texas Extra. So the lawmakers that I listed are not the architects of this plan. If you're wondering who the architect of this plan is, you're about to find out a June 1st letter from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nen. Yahoo also appeared to claim credit for the broader policy, describing a shift from U.S. aid toward joint defense cooperation, development, production, and investment as my plan.

And then Yahoo referred to it as his plan. So all the little boys and girls that he controls in our Congress who insist on throwing the American people under the bus, humiliating us in our military by claiming that we're just not as sophisticated and as advanced as the Israelis are. They're taking their orders from this guy, a literal war criminal. There's more. Because that list I read you, of all the different ways in which the IDF would be baked into our military, it's even longer than what I expressed. The initiative would, it's amazing, The initiative would cover counterdrome systems, missile and air defense, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, autonomous systems, directed energy weapons, advanced sensors, cybersecurity,

electronic warfare, biotechnology, and medical defense. It also contemplates joint testing, production, procurement, supply chain coordination, network connections, and the incorporation of Israeli or jointly developed technology into U.S. military programs. I'd like to queue up the Adam Smith video again so we can remember what he did when he decided to lie to the American people by downplaying the seriousness of this. Because honestly, what's left? What other way could the Israelis possibly force themselves into our military? What portion of the military are they not attempting to infiltrate here? I'd like Adam Smith to answer that question, but you know, it's not, it's not about merging. Is it? Is it not? I don't know. Take a look.

Section 224 has been of a lot of interest to our audience. This is what would effectively partially merge the U.S. military with the Israeli military. You were originally in support of it. You changed your position on it. I just wonder, wanted you know about your thought process here. merge the U.S. military with the Israeli military. What it does is it talks about co-development programs. And mostly I see this as a benefit to the U.S. military, particularly when you're talking about missile defense. The Israeli military is really good at it. They can help us develop those systems so that we have a better system. I think it's an incredible exaggeration to say that this would merge the U.S. military because out of thousands, literally thousands of programs, we would have three, four,

maybe five or six that we were co-developing with the IDF. But you've changed your position now, correct? Correct. We have developed, provided, and continuously funded the Iron Dome system in Israel. Israel did not develop it themselves. And they certainly are not paying for it themselves. Adam Smith is a liar. He's obviously lying about the severity and invasiveness of

of Section 219. He is lying about our own military capabilities and the IDF's military capabilities. And the worst part about all of this, or more importantly, the best way to think of how invasive this is is the way that this whole situation was framed by Colonel Douglas McGregor on the Daniel Davis deep dive today.

McGregor said what this would do, what Section 219 would do, and he's a military, he's a colonel, so he would know. It would codify and legalize what Jonathan Pollard did in being a traitor to the United States and selling American secrets to the Israelis. He served 20 years in prison for that. And what did the Israelis do afterward? They sold those secrets to the Soviets, which I don't know if you guys can recall, we weren't really friends. with at the time. Whatever you might think of the Soviet Union, they were enemies to the United States. And so why are we aligned with a country that keeps spying on us, stealing our nuclear secrets, things like that? Makes no sense. And now with Section 219, all of the potential

Jonathan Pollard scurrying about in the CIA or wherever in our government will be free. In fact, They will be urged to share those secrets with the Israelis. Congratulations, America. By the way, for the right price, I'm sure Israel will go ahead and sell those secrets to anyone, including our biggest enemies. Why not? It's not like they haven't done it before. When we come back, we'll talk about how Trump is expanding the war and even considering boots on the ground.

Because, of course, it was predictable. Merge. All right, Ronald Fan writes in and says, A-T-Y-T-Y-T-Y-N-A-N-A, violence, language, misbehaving isn't the answer. Improve our struggles is the answer. If we want to defeat Trump and end the Iran war the correct way. I think I obviously condemn violence. I do not want to engage in violence.

I don't want anyone else to engage in violence. I don't think that's going to be helpful. In fact, it is incredibly counterproductive to whatever you might be trying to accomplish. I get touchy on, you know, criticisms or demands to rein in rhetoric. Yeah, because a lot of that is also subjective. And I don't know, like, what are we supposed to do when we have a government that doesn't represent us and insists on taking our money to fund atrocities and war crimes in a foreign country? All right, let's go to Jurassic.

Jurassic Rabbit 92 who says she's definitely not being a good sport about, oh, this is about Jasmine Crockett. She's definitely not being a good sport about it. I'm black and I'm not pulling that dumb race card. Yeah, I just, it's cynical. It's so obvious it's cynical. And anyone who doesn't see it blows my mind. The people who are playing into it probably just support Jasmine Crockett over Tala Rico. I don't care either way, by the way. Like, Tala Rico won and he's up against Ken Paxton. So I would prefer for his campaign to not be sabotaged by Jasmine Crockett because she can't accept the fact that she lost.

Anyway, all right. We've got 10 seconds. Ford Country 420 says, do we still have fans of that effing phoity Crockett around here? I don't know. I don't know. You're paying too much for your cell service and your kids are spending too much time screens and noble noble mobile mobile wants to help. If you want to learn how, just go to t yt.com slash switch. That's tyt.com slash switch. They give you cash back for data you don't use.

They help you track whether your kids are spending too much or you, whether you're spending too much time on on screens. So check it out. tyt.com slash switch. Okay, Trump is egging on a wider war and I want to provide you the receipts and make my argument here. So let's get get into it. Our military is capable if we end the start and stop approach of stopping to negotiate and then starting up a military campaign. We need to allow our military to do what they do best and then negotiate from the rubble. Well, it's increasingly looking like Republican Congressman Michael McCall is going to get

what he wants, essentially pulverizing Iran and then negotiating from the rubble because the Pentagon is apparently moving additional military assets and they're conducting a troop surge in the Middle East to, I guess, escalate the war against Iran. And troops on the ground, boots on the ground, not out of the question. We have no idea what Trump is thinking or what he's ultimately going to decide to do. Where is he going to land on this? But it is very expensive to send all these military assets to the Middle East and just keep them there for no reason. So I would venture to say that he is looking to escalate. So according to U.S. officials who spoke to the Wall Street Journal, squadrons of jet fighters have been staged across the Middle East.

And bomber aircraft at bases in the U.S. and UK are on high alert to ramp up operations. So what has been transpiring over the past week? If you've been paying attention to the movement of military assets, then you're probably on top of this already. And it does signal that this war is about to escalate. So in the past week, special operations forces have deployed to the region from their U.S. bases. And that's according to flight tracking data and the U.S. officials who spoke to the Wall Street Journal. Squadrons of jet fighters have been staged across the Middle East and bomber aircraft at bases. in the U.S. and UK are on high alert, again, to ramp up operations, according to one of the officials.

Ramp up operations. There is an official tied to the White House who spoke to the Wall Street Journal and specifically said, we're going to ramp up operations. But here's the problem. Ramping up operations doesn't accomplish anything because there really isn't a military option to end this war. if there were a military option, President Donald Trump would have already deployed that military option. And if you're under the impression that pulverizing Iran will bring the IRGC to its knees, I think you're sadly mistaken. All you have to do is witness a little bit of modern history and how the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s played out. The Iranians do not give up. and they are willing to take a lot of pain to survive.

And it turns out that they're actually very strategic in how they're carrying out this war. Also, I should note that the movement of military assets from various bases, U.S., UK, to the Middle East, include F-16 jet fighters from an airbase in Germany. And then there's also F-35s that are being moved from an air base in England to the Middle East. Also, and this is really important, more than 150 medics have arrived at the Landstool Regional Medical Center in Germany in recent days. The hospital is the primary location for treating troops, injured in combat in the Middle East as they fight a war on behalf of a foreign country, Israel. So they are anticipating more casualties, more U.S. casualties in this disastrous war. So the preparations do indicate that Trump is considering escalation with possible boots on the ground as well. Although we don't really have much clarity or confirmation on it, I just want to give you all the details we have at the moment.

And Abbasarakshi, who's the Iranian foreign minister, did respond to some of Trump's threats. He said in a social media post that any aggression against Iran, including our infrastructure, which Trump repeatedly said that he's going to target, will compel a powerful and decisive response. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19 speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility and Optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary. Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac Canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P global mobility, Canadian new vehicle total registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury.

The troop surge and military buildup could also be about fighting the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have effectively blocked the Red Sea. So the transit of Saudi oil is essentially blocked. It's over for now. Saudi Arabia was getting around the, Hormuz straight blockade by using, you know, a route that needs passage through the Red Sea. But the Houthis have now blocked it. This is this is all obviously disastrous for the global economy. But what I'm prioritizing for the purposes of this discussion is literal human lives. Not only is this war already expensive, not only do we find ourselves in a quagmire, not only have we already lost 18 service members.

Trump is sending 150 medics to the region in anticipation of more casualties on our side. So the Houthis, by the way, lashed out against Saudi Arabia last week. They accused Saudi Arabia of bombing an airstrip to prevent an Iranian plane from landing at one of their airports, the Sanaa airport. And the real question here is, if the surge in troops and military assets is about defeating the Houthis, well, is Trump going to be able to do that? And that's not a facetious question. I'm asking a genuine question because recent history proves that beating the Houthis was a lot more difficult than Trump expected, and he just quit. He just gave up at some point. So Trump

launched an airstrike campaign against the Houthis last year. It ended after two months with a simple ceasefire. There was no deal. There was no bargaining, nothing. It's like, all right, we're done. We're done. These guys are serious and it's over. So after that, Houthis, they were battered by, you know, the U.S. strikes against them. But they obviously survived and then they are now able to carry out this blockade in the Red Sea. So I don't know if there's really a military option in defeating the Houthis.

How do you defeat an idea? especially an idea that springs from the atrocities that are being committed in the Middle East right now. That's what perpetuates the type of ideology that, you know, the West purports to be so concerned about. So the war has proven to be costly for the United States as well. So yesterday, the Republican-controlled House passed a bill. I thought it was $73 billion for supplemental military and intelligence funding, but no, it was close to $100 billion. I just want to remind you that Pete Higgsith and the Defense Department asked for a supplemental funding bill to the tune of, what was it, $67? Yeah, $67 billion.

Congress is like, we got you, bro. We're going to give you close to $100 billion. Anyway, But anyway, Neocon Mark Thesson, who by any rational description, is a failure of a man. Okay, if you don't believe me, he was one of George W. Bush's speechwriters. He was the top speech writer for Rumsfeld. And his political predictions, as you can imagine, have consistently been wrong. He was a huge promoter of the Iraq war. Of course he was. And that reality of him constantly being wrong doesn't stop Fox News from booking him to give his expert opinion on what Trump should do next when it comes to the war against Iran.

Take a look. Devil's advocate and some of these Democratic senators saying we don't know the plan to end. Like how do we end this? And they're saying they haven't laid out or heard a specific strategy. I can give it to you right now. Go ahead. It's very simple. Which is why I asked.

Okay, so we stopped the fighting and the ceasefire in the 20 yard line. We take it into the end zone. We have about 14 days of combat where we have to take out all the targets that we have available. We take out the red that we took out 85% of their domestic, of their defense industrial base. We take out 95% of it. We set back to all their programs and we further entom the nuclear dust. Then we stop major combat operations. We impose the blockade.

We open up Cargile, we open up the straight of Hormuz. And then we go and we help the. the Iranian people overthrow their regime the same way that the United States, we have muscle memory doing this. We've liberated 400 million people during the Cold War without boots in the ground. We armed the Contras. We armed the Mujah Hadin. We armed Unita, Angola. We helped solidarity. We helped Charter 77 in Czech Republic. We know how to bring down regimes without boots in the ground. Mark Thiessen is one of the most ghoulish, disgusting people in our media today. Did he just promote the fact that we armed the contras? Do you guys remember how that happened?

Do you remember the flood of crack cocaine in South L.A. by the CIA in order to raise the money to provide the arms for the contras? Oh, but who cares? That's just a black community in Los Angeles that has struggled ever since, right? He's not a military expert. He's never served in the military. He has no idea what he's talking about. The only thing he knows without a shadow of a doubt is that he loves Israel and will expend any resource. any human life here in the United States on behalf of his little war, on behalf of his little country that he thinks is so important, so important that it destroyed our country already. So why don't we actually hear from military experts, you know, people who know what they're talking about? Because if there were a military option, Trump would have deployed it by now.

We bombed the crap out of Iran for 40 days, and we came out of it with depleted munitions. depleted. And investigative reporting indicates that Iran still has upward of 70% of their munitions intact. Now, if you could snap your fingers and build a bunch of missiles in a day or so, maybe Mark Dyson might have an argument, but that's not the case. It takes literally years to build these missiles and interceptors, years. So Mark, what do we do? What do we do? after we run out and we're engaged in a war with a country that has a ton of missiles. What do we do? Freaking moron. Anyway, I told myself I'd be calm. Anyway, so if Trump wants to put boots on the ground, if he wants to see a surge of troops like the Iraq war surge that was

carried out, would that be successful? Do we even have enough troops? I don't know. Why don't we actually hear from people who know what they're talking about? This is Colonel Douglas McGregor on the Daniel Davis deep dive. from this morning. What would happen if President Trump today was tempted to say, if an invasion happens to say, I'm going to do my own desert storm and I'm going to move a bunch of troops over there. Can we do that? No, first of all, you know, we live in a new world today.

And you could never build a lodgment unless you had enormous quantities of air and missile defense that you could surround the so-called lodgment area where you would collect and organize and assemble forces. And at the time, one of the things that we discussed privately was if we ever have to come back again in the future, given the direction of technology, we'd probably have to land

at a place like Yenbu on the Red Sea and then cross the desert because if we tried to get into the Persian Gulf, we would be sunk or attacked or killed pretty rapidly. A lot of people realized, you know, I think more people realized the danger it would be presented in the future than we appreciate right now. I mean, is Mark Thesson at all aware of the terrain in Iran?

The geography and the challenges that Iran's geography poses to our soldiers, does he care at all? No, of course not. Because there's really no cost to him in taking that risk, right? There's only upside for the Mark Thessons of the world. He's not worried about losing his life. His kids aren't in the military. I don't even know if he has kids. He's not worried about lives lost.

So let's try it. Let's try it and see what happens. What's the worst that could happen? We just spend a lot of money and get a bunch of soldiers killed. Is that what it is? We don't even have the amount of troops necessary to do a surge like that. Now, look, to be fair, Mark Theon, like you don't necessarily have to put boots on the ground. Let's just bomb the crap out of

Iran and bring them to their knees. That doesn't work. We've tried it. And the only way to maybe possibly succeed in regime change would be boots on the ground. But with Iran, it's actually a lot more challenging because they have a decentralized governing system, which is why the decapitation strikes that were carried on against Iran didn't work. It's not as simple as like, oh, let's just assassinate a bunch of their, you know, top politicians or political leaders, and we'll call it a day, their mullahs. No, it's actually a lot more complicated than that, but, you know, seasons of buffoon. One more video for you, because we aren't, we aren't just limited in regard to the number of troops. We're limited in many ways. We are not prepared for

this war that Trump stupidly trusted the Israelis in, carrying out because they told him it'd be easy. Obviously it's not easy. It's been a disaster so far. So here is Colonel Daniel Davis and Douglas McGregor talking about our limitations. President Trump keeps saying and Secretary HECS had said two days ago repeated, we're the most powerful military on the planet. And yet we couldn't even do a Desert Storm 2 because of our limited capability.

That's the reality of it. Yeah, I think we have to understand that it's civilians in general, particularly people who are members of Congress, you know, they're very impressed with glitz and glamour, shock, and awe. You show them videotapes of explosions. They equate an explosion on the ground with an effect that is a war-winning effect. There's no understanding of how complex warfare is. And the need for multiple capabilities being employed and orchestrated as an integrated force. There's just no understanding of that at all.

everybody is in the hunt for a silver bullet. Everybody wants to buy the silver bullet that will win the war. And we're finding out that there are no silver bullets unless you want to go to the nuclear route. And we should talk about that because I think that's being discussed too. I do think that's being discussed and I'm worried about it. I'm worried that the country that has a clandestine nuclear program and consistently threatens to use those nukes happens to be the country that convinced Trump to, engage in this war because Iran can't have nukes, which they didn't have and there was no indication

they were actually building. I actually kind of wish they did build nukes because that would have served as a deterrent and maybe Trump would have thought twice before attacking them and destroying the global economy with a quagmire war that we don't see an end for. How does this end? The only way this could end is if Trump takes his ball and goes home. I know that's a hard thing to hear. I know he doesn't like to think of himself as a loser. He's in government right now. He's the president of the United States right now. And he's still crying like a little bitch over 2020. We're in a lot of trouble. I don't know how this ends. And I'm terrified that nuclear bombs will be used. I'm terrified that more innocent people, including our service member,

are going to get killed, service members are going to get killed. And obviously, I'm worried about the devastating destruction that's happening to the world economy, our global economy. Because even if the war ended today, guys, things don't just go back to normal immediately. You don't just snap your fingers and, you know, the shutdown oil refineries start working again. No, like a lot goes into it. And a lot of damage has been done to oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf and in Russia, which, you know, it's a different war. But when we come back for the second hour, I will be joined by Trita Parsi to talk about the nuclear deal that Trump has made with the Saudis as he conducts a war against Iran over their nuclear program. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. Merge.

My name is Peter Parker, but I'm also Spider-Man. This Thursday We're faced with a threat That can be anyone The world may have forgotten Peter Parker I'm just a neighbor Friendly neighbor But he hasn't forgotten them

Sometimes Spider Man has to do the hard thing That's my responsibility Talk to Banner I didn't know you could get that big Spider-Man Brand New Day in theaters Thursday Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein Rich and powerful men

Abusing Abusing, Assaulting and Abunding and abandoning young women. These rich and powerful men donate to the politicians in Washington, D.C., play golf with the elites in Washington, D.C. They are foreign leaders who we don't want to offend. They interact with our intelligence agencies that we don't want to disobey. There is something rotten in Washington. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?

All those congressmen you just saw there are on the record as protecting the child rapists who were clients of Epstein. have not prosecuted a single person outside of Epstein and Maxwell. Yep. Not one. Is Trump engaging in this cover-up because he's in the Epstein files? I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff. So as the government keeps telling us, yeah, there's other people. Yeah, they rape those girls. So what? We're going to cover up for them. Why are you guys so mad? A nation that chooses impunity for the rich and the powerful at the expense of

if our children is a nation that has lost its moral purpose. Are you on the side of the people? Are you on the side of America's children? Or are you on the side of the rich and powerful who've had their thumb on the scales and shafted Americans for decades? The rest of the news media says you should not fight for positive change. If you do, you're not really a reporter or a journalist, because reporters and journalists don't care what happens.

I don't agree. That's not written anywhere. That's not a law. It's just a rule that they invented so that reporters didn't actually challenge the people that are in power. Well, we don't agree with that. We think we should challenge the people in power that that actually makes you a better journalist, not a worse one. Who do you guys use? We have AT&T.

And how much do you pay per month? 345 and that includes a company discount. How many people? Five phones. $70 a line, right? I've started a wireless company called Noble Mobile that is trying to cut everyone's bills and half. What would, like, a family of four costs? The average Noble mobile user is paying 42 a month, but also they're using their smartphone 17% less. Okay. How's that work out? We give you $20 back

in cash every month based upon how much data you use or don't use. You know when you're dune scrolling or messing around on your phone, you're like, oh, wait, I'm actually costing myself money right now. The goal with Noble Mobile is to encourage us to look up at our children's lovely faces, like touch grass, appreciate life. A friend of mine calls these things are rectangles of sadness. So we're trying to change that and improve everyone's relationships with their phones.

It's a very noble cause. Well, thank you, sir. That's what he is. Been on YouTube for 20 years. The original political partner on YouTube. The Young Turks. The Young Turks. Godfather of independent media. Favorite news platform by far.

Oh, it's not even close. The Young Turks. It's the largest online news show in the world. I watched you guys before I had a channel at all. And I watched Jenks, so Jenks really the start of it all. Big shout out to Cheng from Young Turks. Jank Yugar, founder of TYT, a man who probably needs no introduction. Jenk, so great to talk to you.

Great to talk to you, David. Dan, you worked for a long time, man. Anna Kasparian is one of the most followed and influential progressive women online. I love Anna. Your presence has been essential for me to really grow. All of you know the Young Turks. This is why what young Turks are doing is so important. I've watched you for many years.

You are insightful. I thank you for that. I was going to introduce myself, but it sounds like you guys might know it. Welcome back to the show, everyone, Anna Kasparian with you. Just going to read a quick super chat before we move on. This is from Ali Adib who says, I like the treat a parsley is returning to the show. He'll never go on the free press because they don't know how to treat a parcy, which I really appreciated. And I think you're right.

But with that in mind, and before we get to that interview, I wanted to kind of fill you in on some of the latest updates on the Saudi civilian nuclear program deal that Trump announced yesterday. Let's get into it. Donald Trump announced that the United States has made a deal with Saudi Arabia in regard to their development of a civilian nuclear program. Now, what really stood out about this deal was the fact that it started, or at least the negotiations for it, began under the Biden administration. And there was a pretty big caveat that the Biden administration insisted on. We're not going to let you pursue this program unless you normalize relations with Israel. Now, they didn't finish negotiating before Biden's term was up.

Trump comes into office. he continues negotiating. And when he announced the deal, there was no mention of normalizing Saudi Arabia's relationship with Israel. So that caveat seemed to be totally removed. Well, now it looks like Trump got the call from the man who calls the shots, the actual person who makes the decisions. And that's Benjamin Netanyahu. Because today, Trump did a complete 180, and it appears he did it unilaterally. So here's the headline from the Washington Post, Saudi nuclear deal in doubt, as Trump adds new condition regarding Israel. A day after the agreement was signed, the president laid out a new requirement that the Saudis normalized relations with Israel. And then in the body

of the piece, they write that the nuclear deal, which was fiercely opposed by Israel, which you can't have that, is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, Trump said, in a social media post. And then later, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt seemed to confirm that President Donald Trump made this decision unilaterally without even, you know, talking to the Saudis and updating them on what he's demanding. Take a look. Just to continue on the Saudi nuclear deal, do the Saudis agree with this interpretation since it wasn't part of the initial agreement? And has the president talked to NBS since this new condition was announced? As you know, the president just put out this statement a few hours ago.

I don't believe he's had a call with MBS in the hours since. However, this is something that he has raised in previous conversations and has also said many times in the past. Now, before the 180 was carried out by President Trump, Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, wrote about this civilian and nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia titled the U.S. Saudi nuclear deal makes no sense. How will Washington get Tehran to accept intrusive inspections beyond the JCPOA when Saudi is offered enrichment with no IAEA inspections? So luckily to discuss this story with us today is Trita Parsi. And we will discuss what the deal itself actually entails. And I'll get his comments on the latest update.

Treeta, welcome to the show. Great to be with you again. So before we even get to the 180 that Trump did this morning, I am very not curious because I read your piece, but I would like our audience to be familiar with the arguments that you're making in your piece, especially as it pertains to IAEA inspectors. Let me first say something that's very important to understand. This is not a new thing. The Biden administration pushed this very hard. And they were really building off of Trump's Abram McCourt. I mean, the only thing they seemed to care about in the Middle East was, to get Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel. And as part of that package, they were entertaining, offering security guarantees to Saudi Arabia on the level of NATO, which means that the United States would be obligated to come and defend Saudi Arabia.

And of course, then the Saudis wanted to have this nuclear component to it. And there were moments in which after October 7th, when everything on the Abram Accord kind of went to a standstill, that the Biden administration was contemplating, doing just a standalone nuclear deal with the Saudis that would not have required them to normalize relations with Israel because these Israelis were paying very little attention to normalization at the time. They did recognize, however, that this would be a rather strange deal because the United States would essentially be giving the Saudis nuclear enrichment capability while simultaneously trying to deprive the Iranians from having that same technology and sanctioning them for having

that technology. And they also recognized that this deal could give the Saudis a pathway to a nuclear weapon. And as a result, they were looking into, and I write about it in the subsect, they were looking into various ways of dealing with that issue, such as actually having American troops guard this nuclear facility and protect it from Saudis so that the Saudis would not be able to take over that facility that was in Saudi Arabia. They were even looking into having self-destruction mechanisms at the site. So to make sure that if the Saudis were going in a direction that the US didn't want, it could be destroyed. It's kind of bizarre that if you think that those measures may be necessary, perhaps that would be a hint that this is not a deal you should be doing

in the first place. But the Biden administration was so adamant about binding Saudi Arabia to the United States out of the fear that it would be drifting away towards China. And as a result, they were contemplating these things. Now the Trump administration essentially picked up from where the Biden team left it off. They offered this and as part of this deal, the inspections would be American inspections. It wouldn't be the international standard of the IAEA going into these nuclear sites. It wouldn't be the same safeguards, etc., which then creates another complication with if they simultaneously still desire to make some sort of a nuclear deal with Iranians. Because the JCPO had very intrusive inspections,

And if you want to resurrect that, or if you even want to go beyond that, which I'm sure the Trump administration would love to do so they can say they got a better deal than Obama, how can you do them simultaneously give the Saudis something completely different? The whole argument. And, you know, Trump administration has tried to deprive the Iranians from enrichment. Now, I don't think that ever would have worked. But what happened in February before the war was that there were proposals on the table that the Iranians. Iranians had agreed to in which they would have agreed to a couple of years of a moratorium on enrichment. It would not be enriching at all, which was a very surprising development in my view because Iranis had been so adamant to never agree to any type of a pause.

And in the run up to the NYU, there were discussions in which the Iranians were coming along with an even longer moratorium up to 12 years. Are you going to demand Iranians to not enrich Iranian for 12 years while you're Simon simultaneously giving the technology to the Saudis. So it seems like this side of the administration has no idea what the other side of the administration is doing. And as a result, these haphazard, contradictory proposals and deals that are being struck. And the ultimate end of it, of course, is that nothing gets achieved.

Right. That's exactly right. Now, in the case of the Biden administration, let's rewind for a second, because you said something that caught my attention. I understand why Biden, who was the top recipient of money from the Israel lobby, would be desperate to normalize relations with Israel. But was he motivated to provide this program for the Saudis? And if so, why?

It's really interesting. You have on the one hand this motivation, which was to really do something that pleased the Israelis. And the Biden administration, at first, when they were out of office, those officials were critical of the Abrams accord. But then once they got into office, at first they were trying to find a way to do something that was similar, that wouldn't look as if they were building on it. They certainly didn't like the idea of having the same name because they didn't want to give Trump credit for it. But that was the only priority they had. And they sacrificed everything for that. It was partly driven by the idea that the administration that would be able to get the Saudis to drop all.

of their demands on the Palestinian issue and just gave to the Israelis would be a historic administration. It was also the require or the desire to make sure that in this new world that we were entering that was increasingly becoming multipolar, certain key states such as Saudi Arabia because of its financial strength, because of its resources in terms of energy and oil, would be bound to the United States and really kept away from having some sort of a neutral role or playing both with the Chinese and with the United States. I mean, the Biden administration, their view of the movement towards multipolarity was much darker than what the current administration had.

And as a result, again, they were willing to make massive sacrifices in order to be able to get the Saudis to agree to this. And they were willing to offer, frankly, insane concessions to the Saudis. And the other one that, of course, they were entertaining. And it seems like the Biden, the Trump administration has at least avoided that one, is to offer the Saudi's security guarantees. It would go beyond anything the United States has done with them in the past, which would really obligate the United States to defend the Saudi kingdom and the royal family there. And there is a concern. Yeah.

Pause. Sorry to interrupt you, but this bears a little more elaboration. When you say security guarantees, security guarantees, are they? the type of security guarantees that we provide to Israel, or are they like the type of security guarantees we provide to countries like Ukraine? I think there's a difference there. There's a huge difference. And in some ways, actually, the Israeli ones are much more informal. There is not a formal treaty between the United States and Israel. There is a treaty between the United States and Turkey because Turkey is part of NATO. There isn't one between the U.S.

and Israel, but there is just this political commitment that at least existed up until recently, it seems to be in some ways, at least public opinion is making it much more difficult to sustain. This would be something that would, at least what the Saudis demanded, would be on par with what the U.S. has with NATO countries, which is the highest level that exists. It is essentially a defense pact. An attack on Saudi Arabia is going to be treated as an attack on the United States. And as much as the United States has had these informal commitments to Saudi Arabia, which it hasn't lived up to from the Saudi perspective, this would make it. explicit and formal.

And it would be a slap in the face of all of the promises that administrations such as the Biden administration and certainly the Trump administration has made, which is we need to get out of the Middle East. This is the opposite. This is truly binding ourselves and tangling ourselves by a treaty to the internal affairs of the Middle East and signing up to actually treat any attack on Saudi Arabia as an attack on the United States. What would happen if Israel attacks Saudi Arabia?

I mean, it's an interesting question because this is part of the problem. The United States gives too many security guarantees. So oftentimes in conflicts, it actually has a commitment, one informal or formal to both sides in that conflict, which is part of the reason, I think a strong argument, to really review this and recognize that we should not be committing ourselves in this matter. And the more we do, the less value it has because the credit. of these security guarantees becomes less when we are overextending ourselves. Well, shockingly, Israel might actually be useful in this very specific scenario.

Because I'm not entirely convinced that even if Saudi Arabia agreed to the Abraham Accords, that Israel would be okay with them having a civilian nuclear program. And to be fair to the Israelis, which people think I'm never fair to, I'm never fair to them. But in this case, I will be because Saudi Arabia has expressed some, interest in obtaining a nuclear weapon as a deterrent. And I don't blame them for wanting that, given what we're seeing in the Middle East right now. If you have a nuclear weapon, you're far less likely to be attacked by the United States. And I think right now, with Israel as our ally, many countries in that region are worried about being attacked either now or eventually

by the United States. And here's where there is an argument, and it's actually backed up with facts, once you give the country the type of nuclear technology that the US is now offering the Saudis, then they also have the leverage of saying, well, if you don't give us the security guarantees, then we will go nuclear and we will build a nuclear bomb because now they have the capability of doing so. So even though there is no security guarantee as part of this deal and perhaps the Trump administration really didn't want to give that to the Saudis, this may provide the Saudis with the leverage in which down the road, they can issue such threats in order to get it.

This is what South Korea, for instance, have been able to do. And now we have massive security guarantees in South Korea. In fact, we have by law, there's a U.S. law that says that we can never have less than 25,000 troops in South Korea. Wow. So let's fast forward to what was announced today, which is that Trump very clearly did an about face. And now he's saying that normalization with Israel is mandatory. order for this deal to get through. And this isn't related to the Saudi nuclear deal, but I think that it's telling of how the Israelis view their influence on us and on Donald Trump particularly.

So Benjamin Nanyahu went on some Israeli television show, and he said the following. After Trump gets elected, he says, I went in with seven big slides. Quote, here's what we're going to do, he told Trump, not are you allowing us or don't you. I told him about Fordo and said your B-2s would be much more effective. He listened and in the end he joined. So it's amazing because if you talk about the undue influence of Israel on our government, you get called an anti-Semite, but the Israelis brag about it, they boast about it on a regular basis. They rub it in our faces.

So do you think that Trump basically did the 180 because of the Israelis and their backlash? Or could there be another reason? I cannot see any other plausible reason as to why he would have changed this and said that it is contingent upon them joining the Abram accord. I mean, that was the only other conditions that the Israelis wanted. if it was because of a backlash against the deal itself, it would have walked out of the deal. He would have recognized that, yeah, it doesn't make sense, giving that technology while you're trying to deprive others from having that technology.

It doesn't make sense. I mean, at a minimum, do it later. It complicates a potential deal with Iranians. So, you know, if that was the case, it would have had a different reaction. I would have nothing to do with Israelis joining the Abram accord. So the only plausible explanation is that there was a massive backlash from the Israeli side and from the pro-Israeli side because the deal that was on the table or that they were discussing before, the problem that Israelis had with it was not security guarantees to Saudi Arabia.

They were like fine with that. But they were having a major problem with was either if the language on the Palestinian state was too strong, and I can tell you what it was, it was really weak, but mainly it was the nuclear component. They did not want to see that technology in the hands of the Saudis and now suddenly have to worry that potentially the Saudis will also go nuclear. On the Palestinian state, they were toying with ideas. Not, you know, the strongest language was a pathway to Palestinian state. We've been on a pathway to Palestinian state for seven decades. It means nothing.

But they even weakened that to be a political horizon for the Palestinians. They didn't even mention a state. So it was at that level. But the real concern was the nuclear issue and that this would be given to them as part of a normalization. But I don't think that's the key reason why the Israelis didn't. go that direction. I think what they saw after October 7 is that they could just annex all of the Palestinian terrorists where the US would be fine with it. So why make a deal with the Saudis in order to be able to go down that path? You can already go down.

Oh, that's a devastating point. Yeah, that's a great point. Oh, you're so right about that. Well, I think in the end, given how the Israelis feel about this deal, it's unlikely to actually come to fruition. And I think that's probably a good thing. I think that's probably be so sure. I mean, they're going to make their opposition to it. I think in this case, I mean, I think it's very fascinating. There's a deal. He announced it. He brags about it. And next day, he just fundamentally changes the terms of the deal on Twitter. What does it do? It sends a signal to everyone. Not only can he not trust Trump's promises, you cannot even trust his signature. Even if he negotiates a deal, it's a treaty, whatever it is, it's formalized. He can back away from it.

Will he really back away from an, I think it's a struggle. It's a question mark at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if it would go forward in some ways because there's financial interest involved as well with investments by Saudi in the United States, buying Westlinghouse reactors. But nevertheless, a complication has clearly been created here. All right. Well, fascinating stuff. TRETA, as always, pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you so much for having. We really appreciate. Thank you. Have a great night. Thank you, too. You too. All right, everybody. We have to take a break. When we come back, we'll dive right into the energy crisis.

I really appreciated a monologue that Tucker Carlson published on YouTube last night about the impending energy crisis. And we're going to kind of break that down and give you some pretty crushing numbers when we return. Don't miss it. What's up, everyone? Welcome back to our social break video Z3N in our member section. This is our YouTube member section, specifically. says Republicans are strategically delaying any declaration of Mitch McConnell's death or vacancy until after August 3rd, 2026 to avoid triggering a special election. I have no doubt that they're trying to delay. I don't, I am not going to issue any declarative statement about Mitch McConnell's whereabouts. I don't know if he's, I mean, he put out that video with his wife and it seemed like he was still alive. I don't know where he's at now. He's not in Congress, though.

He's not serving in the role that he is supposed to serve in right now. And there's a very obvious reason why they're not doing anything about it in Congress. Anyway, they don't want Thomas Massey to run for that seat. That's what it is. Anyway, let's go to Liz Smith, who says, I usually watch a pirate feed on YouTube. I'm too old to figure out Twitch. Ha, ha, ha. I'm too old to figure out Twitch too. Do you know how many times I tried to do the like Amazon free subscription thing for our own channel? And I'm just like, I don't, I can't figure it out, whatever. Okay. Let's go to Cyclonic Karma who says, who says pretty much convinced that only God can fix this mess and it will be masterful when he does all in good time.

It is shocking that I'm saying this, but I have my days when I think that too, to be honest. I mean, I said something along those lines on Pierce Morgan show yesterday when it came to justice in regard to Benjamin Netanyahu and his war crimes. We might not see justice in this world. It sucks. For the best, because he sends us a super chat and it simply says, merge. Like, what is that? What is that? Why do you talk like that?

You are a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Like, clean that up. Clean that up. Anyway, let's move on to some other news, beginning with this. Iran and the countries around Iran produce about 20% of global oil supply. Russia, meanwhile, produces about 12% of global oil supply. So these are the biggest energy producing regions in the world. And the wars have gravely affected their ability to produce that energy and to ship it anywhere else and to refine it for that matter.

Overnight, the Houthis claimed they struck two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. This image from NASA appearing to show at least one ship on fire. All of this pushing oil prices higher once again. Brent Crude now topping $100 a barrel. Oh yeah. Oh, yeah. You heard that right. Brent Crude now topping $100 a barrel.

And things are about to get a lot worse because based on the movement of U.S. military assets and a surge of troops into the Middle East, it looks like Trump is looking to escalate the war against Iran, which, you know, doesn't really bode well for the Houthi blockade in the Red Sea. It doesn't bode well when it comes to the closure of the Strait of Formuz. But he's going for it anyway. That's who Trump is, just totally unhinged, total lunatic, clearly doesn't care about the health and well-being of his own country and certainly not the global economy. So Tucker Carlson dedicated his latest monologue on this very matter.

And I appreciated so much because something that has driven me crazy, not just during this war, but for years now, is this whole notion of we need to drill more here in the United States to be energy independent. Now, whether or not you think it makes sense to drill more, put that aside. Because what I want to address is the topic of energy independence, which makes no sense. when you have a globalized energy market, meaning oil and gas companies sell their product to the highest bidder on the global stage. Unless we nationalize our oil and gas, you actually really can't do that. I don't know if you guys know this. But we are the top exporter of oil and gas, but we also import a ton of crude. And that's because our refineries here in the United States can only refine a certain type of oil

that we can't drill for here in the United States. So we import it from other parts of the world. It is a global economy. There's no such thing as energy independent. We don't have nationalized oil and gas companies. Okay. Now, I think we should have a discussion about potentially nationalizing one oil company. And the reason why I think we should do that is because we should have an entity that's hyper-focused on keeping our strategic petroleum reserves full. You know?

But anyway, and that way, when we have a crisis like this, it can mitigate wild spikes, in energy prices. But, you know, that would actually take strategy planning. We don't have a government that has any interest in that. So getting back to Tucker Carlson, you know, he addresses the already poor conditions we're dealing with when it comes to energy and how much it's gone up in recent weeks and months. And the fact that these wars continue, not just in Iran, but also the Ukraine-Russia war, where Ukraine is hitting some of Russia's oil infrastructure, their refineries and stuff like that, that is causing a really big problem when it comes to the supply of energy on the international stage. Take a look.

This war, combined with the war that we are waging against Russia in Eastern Europe, have completely shut down probably a quarter of the world's energy. And what does that mean? Well, it means poverty and disaster and almost certainly famine in some places in Africa because, of course, half of all global fertilizer is derived from natural gas, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It means a readjustment downward of the standard of living of people, certainly in Europe, almost certainly in the United States, and definitely in parts of Asia. And you know, the mention of fertilizer doesn't get mentioned enough.

Because aside from an energy crisis, what we are playing with here is a food shortage, a global food shortage because a third of the world's fertilizer also transited through the Strait of Hormuz. And so right now, farmers are having a hard time getting their hands on fertilizer, or it's incredibly expensive because there's limited supply on. the market. So, and let me also just quickly note, there are countries that have already been rationing gas, rationing oil, because of the fact that they've been hit even harder than we have due to this war against Iran, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. So with all of that in mind,

I want to go to my favorite part of his monologue where he took jabs at the disinformation coming out of the likes of our Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. Take a look at that. Take a look at the Secretary of Defense. This is in June on a network Sunday show, is asked about energy and the effect of this war on energy. And here's how the secretary, I beg your pardon, of war, responds to the question. Watch. We have a totally different energy dynamic around the world.

By the way, the way energy flows today, the straits will be nowhere near as relevant one to two years from now. Because of the foresight of President Trump, he's made us Energy independent at home, we're a net exporter. Now Venezuela through our partnerships. Now we're killing foreign terrorist leaders who have terrorized the American people, the amount of drugs and gangs that came to the country and the United States of America. It's a huge deal. So I don't know that the independence is helping people at the pump.

They are. There was a very specific point in there. And it was, look, the straight and form moves was effectively closed. Like, that's measurable. Everybody knows that. It's been closed since April. You kind of can't lie about that. But it doesn't really matter because the straight-of-form moves is basically becoming irrelevant.

Like really, who cares about the straight-of-form moves? It's just 20% of global energy. No one really cares because the energy dynamic is changing. Because we arrested Maduro and his wife and put them in a cell in New York. And so the energy dynamic is changing. So, of course, in real life, it doesn't mean anything because it was spoken by someone who doesn't know anything. I mean, look, that was a mild criticism, but I'll take it. I'll take it. Pete Heggzith might be the

dumbest political figure in the country, maybe even dumber than Trump. And that's just because he's better at articulating his dumb statements doesn't mean that he's smarter. He's so dumb. And I think the thing about Hegsitt that's so infuriating is he's both dumb and a liar. and a liar. And that was on full display at the Senate Appropriations hearing this week. Okay, well, putting that aside,

that was a statement from Tucker, right? He doesn't know anything. Okay, so what does he need to know? And this is the most important part. What does energy independence actually mean? And is that even possible in our context? Well, he addresses that in the next video.

So pre-war, which is to say on February 27th of this year, about 20 million barrels of oil, not even including LNG, but let's just stick to petroleum, oil. About 20 million barrels per day, we're moving through the strait of Hormuz. So that's a huge amount of energy to make up for how are you going to do that. Well, of course, with Venezuela, which we know from listening to the president has the largest oil reserves in the world. But does it matter? Well, it doesn't matter if the oil is still under the ground. So how much oil is Venezuela exporting now? Well, the good news is the number is up. What's the number? Well, it's a little over a million barrels a day. A million barrels a day. Now, keep in mind,

the Strait of Formuz allowed 20 million barrels a day to go through before the Trump administration decided to kill the elderly religious leader of Iran. Where do we get the extra 19 million barrels per day to make up for what we've lost in these straight-to-form moves, which apparently no longer really matters. No hint, because there's no answer. And he's right about that. No hint because there's no answer. And this is something that I've been digging into pretty deeply in my research,

because I want to know if there is an answer. I want to know if there is some other transit route that can be utilized in order to get the flow of oil and LNG back to where it was. You know, 20 million barrels a day through the Strait of Hormuz is no joke. So how are we going to make up for that? So right now, there is an effort to bypass the Strait of Hormuz with new pipelines that are currently being constructed. Remember that the Houthis also blocked the Red Sea. So, you know, some of the solutions required passage through the Red Sea.

so it doesn't look like that's going to happen unless somehow the U.S. defeats the Houthis, which you would think would be easy to do, right? Except we didn't defeat the Houthis in the Saudi-led war against them, which, of course, we joined. We caused a freaking famine in Yemen in an effort to defeat the Houthis, and we failed. So that blockade, I think, is going to remain. So how do we make up for the 20 million barrels of oil a day? that are no longer transiting through the Strait of Hormuz.

So like I said, there are some pipeline projects in the work. Some of them have been sped up in order to respond to this crisis we're dealing with. The state-owned oil company of Abu Dhabi is accelerating construction of a $3 billion, 200-mile pipeline to Fujaira. That pipeline, which will run parallel to an existing one, aims to increase oil supplied to Fujairaira by more than 1.2 million barrels a day. Wait, 1.2 million. Okay, all right, so we got to make up for 20 million barrels of oil

that we're transiting through the straight of foremost. This is just one project, to be fair. 1.2 million barrels a day, great. The pipeline will be completed soon by mid-2020. disaster. There are other projects in the works as well, though. So don't worry. They're just taking too long and will also be insufficient.

So the new projects to bypass hormones could carry an added 3.8 million barrels of oil a day by the end of next year and 7.3 million barrels per day by the end of 2028. And that's according to analysts over at Goldman Sachs. There is no answer because there is no solution here. There's certainly no solution that would be fast enough and sufficient enough to prevent a global meltdown. Actually, there is one solution. End the war. End the war, please. But that's not going to happen because, as I've repeatedly said, on the show today,

Trump is moving additional, you know, military assets and troops to the Middle East to escalate the war. We're in a lot of trouble. And it is terrifying to be led by a government full to the brim of people who don't even understand how things work. Pete Higgs has no idea. Weekend host at Fox News. He had no qualifications to be the Secretary of Defense yet here we are.

We should keep in mind also that when Trump visited President Xi, I believe this was back in May, he was very friendly. And I knew that there was something up. His friendliness was for a strategic purpose. And soon after that, President Xi stopped importing oil into China and instead tapped into China's strategic petroleum reserve, which, of course, would free up supply of oil in the, international market. But the question that remains is like, what did President Xi get in return? Did you get promises from Trump that the United States won't intervene if China tries to

take over Taiwan? Is there something else at play? And by the way, China can't forever avoid importing oil. So in recent days, they ramped up imports again. And then the one other thing that's disastrous and no one's thinking about, no one's talking about. Our entire economy right now is based on a bet on AI. Okay, so explain to me what AI development requires. Data centers, right? What does those data centers need? Now, I don't think we should ensure that our entire economy hinges on the development of AI. I think that's a big mistake. But that's an even bigger mistake when you consider the direction we are headed in when it comes to an energy crisis. We got to take a break.

When we come back, I really want to talk about just the dirty deeds being carried out by establishment Democrats against candidates like Abdul al-Said. We'll be right back. Tucker Carlson, a terrible friend. Box in our member section makes a pretty devastating and accurate point. Remember the Saudis chop up reporters. Muhammad bin Salman ordered the killing and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, who was a U.S. resident and a reporter or columnist for the Washington Post. Anyway, let's go to Marco Antonio P who says Blue Maga is here apparently defending Jasmine Crooked Crockett.

Look, I think, look, I don't even know if that viewer is a defender of Jasmine Crockett. But what I do know is that once identity politics gets cynically, especially injected into a political fight, People, like, they just want to believe that the cause is racism or anti-Semitism or whatever the hell they want to believe. Like, don't be fooled. By the way, racism is real. But what's also real is people weaponizing identity cynically to either destroy someone's political campaign or to move up, you know, the ladder at work, whatever it is.

And I've seen so much of it and I was such a coward in not speaking out against it. And I'm not going to be a coward anymore. And I don't care which identity group is engaging in that behavior. I'm going to call it out. But that's not to say that there are no instances of racism. Racism does exist. But when it isn't in the case, I'm going to call it out. All right, welcome back to the show, everyone.

And welcome to our Twitch community. Just want to read a quick comment from our Twitch viewers, including A.J. Nestor who says, declaring a group, real or imagined, a terrorist organization is becoming quite the past time for the bad guys. It's been the past time for the bad guys following 9-11. It's like their favorite tactic. So you're right about that. And welcome to Matthew Star BB. I hope you enjoy our members-only bonus episode today.

And for those of you who are considering membership, look into it, see if you can, if you're interested. interested in it. And thank you to everyone who supports the show and keeps us independent from, you know, corporate influence. As you can tell, we do have partners time to time, but we are very picky with who we choose to partner with. And I think Noble Mobile Mobile is great. I have no problem promoting them. There was one company that we were involved with that I didn't fully understand was a disaster, but I also avoided promoting them. And I'm glad I did. Anyway, let's move on. Let's talk a little bit about what's happening in this race involving Democratic candidate, Abdul El-Said. So we have yet another Democratic candidate who is to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party

dealing with cynical, disgusting allegations in an effort to sink his campaign. There's really no other way to put it. And he's not only getting attacked by Republicans, also Democrats. It's really this bipartisan fight to sink his campaign. And I want to show you who I'm talking about. So Abdul al-Said, who you saw in the images beside me as I was sharing the story, drew some backlash recently. Okay. And he drew backlash for doing what I think political leadership needs to do. and that's finding ways to work with like-minded folks on the other side of the political aisle to accomplish wins for the American people. And I'm not talking about the real bipartisanship we do see in Congress these days,

which is, oh, we want to start another war? Great. We want to increase the budget for the Pentagon, which has failed every single audit. Great, we agree, let's do it. The kind of bipartisanship I'm talking about is the type of bipartisanship that seeks, to solve the very real problems we do have in this country. So Abdul al-Sal-Aid had apparently mentioned something on a podcast that drew the ire of some Democrats. So during an appearance on Politico's podcast, The Conversation with Dasha Burns, he was asked about the overlap between the populist right and left, particularly as it

relates to former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, and her appearing to shift her views quite a bit when it comes to things like Israel, corporate greed, and more. Take a look. So I talked to former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green on this podcast in April. And it's kind of remarkable how similar some of your positions are. Like she also has condemned Apex influence and politics, called for no more U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel, said that the cost of health insurance needs to go down. Do you think you could build this new coalition with people like?

MTG? Look, she said a lot of things I disagree with, too. I'll just say this, that I wouldn't be surprised, right, when you ask me about why establishment elite Democrats are so worried about me. It's because there are a lot of people who listen to her who are going to vote for me in the general election. They're not afraid I'm going to lose. They're afraid I'm going to win.

And at the end of the day, we get so polarized about D versus R, red versus blue, that we forget that when you talk about the things that people actually care about, you can win elections. You can do that in uncommon ways. But too often the Democratic Party is more interested in continuing to take money from its corporate and special interest donors than it is in speaking conventional truth. It should be an obvious thing that everybody agrees with that we should keep our money here. It should be an obvious thing that everybody agrees with that people shouldn't go into medical debt in the richest most powerful country in the world. The fact that MTG agrees with those points should not be all that uncommon because they're just like obvious things to say.

And the fact that neither party is willing to say that is a reflection of the amount of money both parties take from the corporations and the special interests who in effect buy them off to be able to say that. Look, when you have a public consensus that's here, right, everybody kind of agrees on one thing. And then a political consensus that's over here, the difference is usually somebody's money. When it comes to health care, the difference is pharma money and health insurance money and big hospital money. And when it comes to the question of foreign policy, the difference is usually A PAC money. And if we got that money out, maybe our, Our political consensus would match our public consensus.

Okay, so what he centered his argument on is that he doesn't think the corruption that is now baked into our political system has really boated well for the American people. And he's right about that. And to be fair to Marjorie Taylor Green, even when I loathed her and she was, in my opinion, pretty unhinged in her behavior, even then she was not taking money from big donors. She was one of the top fundraisers in her party, but she was funded by small dollar donors who loved her because of her populist message. So while she certainly has shifted her views in some ways when it comes to things like Israel, for instance, the fact of the matter is, you know, the foundation of what she

or how she presented herself and who she was and what she wanted to do, it's always kind of been there. And I do think she matured during her time in Congress. She came in acting like a lunatic. And I think she learned a lot and came out with policy views that I still disagree with vehemently. But I found the humanity in her because she showed her humanity. And I can work with people like that on specific issues, obviously, right? So I have no problem with what Abdul al-Say had said in that video.

However, it did lead to backlash from Israel's operatives, of course, like Eton Fishberger, who says that Michigan's communist Senate candidate, Abdul al-Said, says that there are a lot of people like me, or a lot of people who listen to Marjorie Taylor Green, who are going to vote for me. I love it when they just say the SIOP out loud. Or Eton, it could be possible that, you know, there is a consensus between the left, and the right in terms of the voters, of course, that Israel is really a liability to the people of the United States. They're welfare queens that keep asking for more and more money, taking, taking, taking. And I would venture to say that both Democrat, Democratic and Republican voters don't

appreciate that. Anyway, then you have the Democrats, just Democratic establishment of voting. like Jose, who says, but Kamala Harris speaking with Liz Cheney was a problem. Yeah, Jose, it was a problem. It was a problem. It was. Liz Cheney might have a good argument in regard to her moral high ground when it comes to pushing back against Trump following January 6th. But that doesn't erase her lifetime of war mongering, of dragging our soldiers into endless Middle East wars, she is a despicable neocon scumbach. And what you are signaling to your voters when you prance around town with the likes of freaking Liz Cheney is you are signaling to them that in the middle of this

genocide against Gaza, if you elect me, we're going to keep going. We're going to keep going. So yeah, Jose, it was a problem. Also, there's this huge difference between pointing out that Marjorie Taylor Green and Abdullah Saeed's voters might have arrived at some of the same conclusions and, you know, being endorsed by and campaigning with the daughter of the architect of the Iraq War. Nonetheless, many conservative Democrats heralded the Cheney's endorsement. And it wasn't just Liz Cheney. It was also Dick Cheney. And when Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala Harris, she said that she was honored by it.

That was a problem, Jose. It was a problem. Okay? So let's go to this comment from Joe Biden who said, what she did, this is about Liz Cheney, what she did took not only political courage, but physical courage, physical courage. I don't care what Biden had to say.

He's a total joke and a disgrace. Okay, so the Republicans and progressives aligning over the hatred of corruption and money in politics and Needless Wars, by the way, apparently a bridge too far for some in the Democratic establishment. So the Abdul al-Said and Haley Stevens race is very charged, incredibly charged. So the race has emerged as a bit of a proxy battle between the Democratic Party's, you know, socialist wing or actual left wing and the establishment leadership. So you have Bernie Sanders, Acacio Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren,

Abdula-Said. And then Stevens has secured the endorsements from retiring Senator Gary Peters from Michigan and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who of course is the Senate Minority Leader from New York. And it should be noted that Peters had originally pledged to be neutral. Gary Peters, he was like, I'm not going to endorse. I don't want to stay out of it. But once he realized that Abdul al-Said is doing pretty well,

All of a sudden, he changed his mind and decided to endorse Haley Stevens. Now, Stevens was endorsed by Democratic kingmaker Jim Clyburn, who has been behind such bangers as Kamala Harris, 2024, Biden, 2024, and Clinton, 2016. But for Clyburn, this case simply, the case of simply endorsing Haley Stevens, not enough for Clyburn. Like, he's got to stick a knife in Abdullah Saeed. And how is he going to do that? Do you want to guess?

Do you want to guess? Okay. So here's what he said about one of the rallies featuring Al-Said. He said, I saw a picture that concerned me coming out of Michigan. I saw the rally. I didn't see a single person that looks like me. That tells me all I need to know. Are you calling the Muslim candidate in this race who's up against?

against a white woman who's heavily funded by APAC, racist? Is that what you're doing? So Ryan Grimm found out that one of the consultants for Haley Stevens was working for Palantir simultaneously. And after he called that out in an interview, Stevens's campaign let that consultant go. Is that the kind of rot that Jim Clyburn wants to endorse? And in fact, is willing to smear a candidate as a racist in order to get his way? And are we really okay with people cynically using their identity to sync political campaigns? Are we?

Because I'm not. There's been no indication that Abdul al-Said is racist. None, zero. But hey, if the race card can sink a left-wing candidate that we don't like, why not? And if that doesn't work, maybe we can use rape allegations. That hasn't happened yet. So it should be noted that Stevens is white and I'll say it is not. It shouldn't even matter.

I shouldn't even have to bring that up. But Jim Clyburn forced me to. So thanks, Jim. I appreciate that. AOC waited on the demographic breakdown of this whole situation. And I was bracing for impact because I was terrified of what she was going to say. She tends to fall in line with the culture war type stuff, but she said, I think what we're actually experiencing right now is a more nuanced conversation than to simply treat black people and black voters in this country as a monolith. That is a mistake that I think many people are making. Yes, AOC, yes, it is a mistake. Thank you. So conservative Dems have been quick to dismiss, you know, all sorts of DSA candidates appealing to mostly white voters. But is that true? Journalist Michael Lang, who did a deep dive on Claire Valdez's victory in New York,

actually found out that she won over every race and age demographic. This is not the electoral footprint of a gentrifier candidate, squeaking past on margins from millennial and Gen Z white transplants. It is the signature of a multiracial cross-generational coalition. I think Democrats, and this is important guys, need to wise up to these cynical attacks that are being carried out by the very politicians who are funded by corporate interests and foreign lobbies. We can't be suckers and you can't immediately believe every allegation that is used against a candidate that the establishment clearly doesn't like. Please be smarter than that. Anyway, we're not done with this topic because in the bonus episode for our members, I am going to talk about how Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat,

is attempting to sabotage another Democrat's candidacy for a Senate seat in Texas. We'll be right back. Tired of the doom scroll, you're not alone. The entire system is designed to keep you glued to your screen while the billionaire owners of big wireless profit from every minute you're on it. But what if you can break that cycle and get rewarded for it. Our partners at Noble mobile have a revolutionary idea. They pay you to use your phone less. On their noble plan, you get unlimited data for just $50 a month. That's an awesome deal.

But the data you don't use, you get it as cash back. It's a fundamentally different model, one that incentivizes you to look up from your phone and spend more time doing things that bring you joy. So save money, break free from the grind, and take control back. from big wireless. And by switching to Noble, you're directly supporting TYT and our mission of bringing you honest, independent news. So give Noble a try and make the switch today. Visit noblemobile.com slash tYT. That's noblemobile.com slash tYT.